Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on July 15th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because art that teaches that product of claim 1-12 does not necessarily teach the method of claims 15-18. Furthermore, there may be constructional details of the electrochemical device that require a field of search that do not overlap with the product of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avison (US 2016/0104876 A1), and further in view of Lim (US 2021/0359375 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Avison teaches a porous composite separator comprising inorganic particles and a polymeric binder [0004] which binds the inorganic particles together. Avison fails to teach the claimed coating layer with staple fibers and binder polymer particles. Lim is analogous art to Avison because both discuss batteries (Avison, abstract; Lim, abstract). Lim teaches a coating layer comprising cellulose fibers (as required by claim 6; [0064]) and a binder [0076]. Applying this coating layer to a separator substrate may increase the peel strength of the separator [0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply Lim’s coating layer to Avison’s separator in order to increase the peel strength of the composite separator.
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches that the binder particles may be styrene-butadiene rubber [0077].
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches that the length of the staple fibers may range between 500 nm – 10 µm [0094], which completely overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 µm – 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches that the diameter of the staple fibers in the coating layer may be in the range of 5 nm – 500 nm [0094], overlapping with the claimed range of 200 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Lim’s coating layer may be comprised of a binder and cellulose fibers [0076]. The binder may have of 0.5 – 30 wt.% based on the total mass of the coating layer [0077] and the cellulose fibers may have a weight ratio of 80% - 100% based on the total weight of the coating layer [0080]. The combination of these ranges overlaps the claimed range where the mass ratio of the binder polymer particles to staple fibers ranges from 95:5 – 20:80. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches that the coating layer has a thickness in the range of 0.5 µm – 20 µm [0088], overlapping with the claimed range of 3 µm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 9, Avison teaches that the inorganic particles may be Al2O3, AlO(OH), ZnO, and ZrO2 (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Avison teaches that the binder polymer may be PVdF, cellulosics, or nitriles [0005].
Regarding claim 11, Lim gives an example of their coating layer where the ratio of inorganic particles to binder polymer particles is 5.5: 1 [0033], which is within the claimed range of 50:50 – 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avison and Lim as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim (US 2019/0115577 A1, henceforth referred to as Kim). Avison and Lim fail to teach the claimed particle size of the binder polymer particles. Kim is analogous art because they discuss batteries (title). Kim teaches that that binder particles having a diameter in the range between 10 nm – 2000 nm are used in a coating layer prevent closure of pores in the separator [0045]. This prevents an overload of the battery [0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use binder polymer particles with the range taught by Kim to prevent an overload of the battery.
The range of 10 nm – 2000 nm overlaps with the claimed range of 50 nm – 1000 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avison and Lim as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Marple (US 2012/0021266 A1) Avison and Lim fail to teach the claimed tensile strength. Marple is analogous art because they discuss batteries (title). Marple teaches that the tensile strength of a separator should at least be 1000 kgf/cm2 [0083]. If the tensile strength is too low, manufacturing and internal cell forces can cause tears [0083]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention date to use a separator with a tensile strength greater than 1000 kgf/cm2 to prevent tears in the battery.
The range of 1000 kgf/cm2 or greater overlaps with the claimed range of 180 kgf/cm2 or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Uno (US 2021/0091358 A1) discloses a porous organic/inorganic separator that comprises inorganic particles, a binder, and staple fibers (abstract).
Sugiyama (US 2023/0411788 A1) teaches that the tensile strength of the separator in a battery should be 0.2 N/mm2 or greater (abstract), which corresponds with a strength of 2 kgf/-cm2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights